These Republicans surely don't believe that a rapist is ever doing "God's work"; it's a plea for the sanctity of life. Yet these same politicians tend to favor capital punishment and military adventures abroad in which civilians are injured or perish ("collateral damage"). In the balance, I favor actual instead of potential life. And it compounds the tragedy of rape to force a woman to give birth to a child conceived in an act of violence.

Why does the woman be forced to carry a rapist's child to term and go through the incredibly difficult (and life threatening) effort to give birth to it -- and then nurture and support the child through into adulthood -- just because some misogynist man decided to rape her? If that child is a gift from God, then how is the rapist not doing God's work?

Why did God give us all brains and souls? Doesn't the woman have a choice about having a baby -- and about whom the father is; and not just give in to God's will? The rapist got to choose to force himself on the woman -- or is he too just giving in to God's will?

Edit: Oh, and I thought Republicans wanted small government? Why are they inserting themselves into our most important choices, in our bedrooms? Remember, they want to give a fertilized egg all the protections of a person; which will outlaw most contraceptives, and in vitro fertilization. I wonder who they will choose to punish when a woman has a miscarriage? Did you know that about 50% of all fertilized eggs never get implanted? Is that murder?

I think, Neil, that it is becoming clear to many people that a good portion of the Republican Party--which, after all, was once the party of Lincoln--has been hijacked by a radical fringe movement and that it is a waste of time to take that fringe seriously. The last time I was in the States, one such Republican informed me that the American Civil Liberties Union was the "anti-Christ" and at that point I knew discussion was no longer possible.

I'll add that I have known and liked some moderate Republicans (they seem to be disappearing, as Colin Powell said recently, and Reagan appointee O'Connor said: “It’s my party that’s destroying the country").

Though I do think the candidate's view is quite radical and incorrect (shades of Benedict Spinoza), I don't want to talk about his comments. I would like to talk about the tangential thread on women's reproductive rights.

I am a neokantian metaethicist. This is not to say that I am active in the field -- I studied Philosophy with particular emphasis on metaethics while at university, and this is the school of thought that made the most sense to me. As a neokantian, I speak of ethics and good in terms of rights and universalizability (making logical rules apply to all rational creatures). This is different than, say, a utilitarian, who would look at consequences to determine what is good and what isn't. I promise I'm not intentionally trying to be dense -- it's important to know that I see "right" and "wrong" through the lenses of rights and rule following, as opposed to merely human suffering, etc.

To me, being a human entails having many rights, including a right to life. This has both positive and negative duties under a kantian view. We have both the positive duty to help a human live (eg. pulling them out of a river if they are drowning), and we also have a negative duty that restricts us from murdering that being. So I take as granted that a human has rights. Now we have to determine when a human life begins.

I find it arbitrary to point to any other time in the human lifecycle other than conception as the beginning of a human life. Some will say implementation (when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus). Some will say sentience (in the philosophical sense, meaning "can feel pain", not "is self-aware"). Others will say viability (when the fetus can live outside the womb). There are a few other points (at first heartbeat, etc.), but to me, all these points seem arbitrary. We can think of odd scenarios where we take away each of the "right-giving properties" present at these early stages of life from an adult human being, who still deserves rights. For example, there are some people who exibit a neurological condition that makes them unable to feel pain. Although this is the case, we still believe we owe them rights as a human being. If not feeling pain does not take an adult human's right away, why should it take away a right from a fetus? Obviously, this is a very rough outline, but I can elaborate to a much greater degree if necessary.

Finally, we arrive at my conclusion. I think that a fertilized egg has a right to life, because it satisfies the basic requirement of being a human being. If an adult has rights and a teenager has rights and a child has rights and a baby has rights, then the chain keeps going (I think) all the way up to fertilization. Before that, there is no possibility for a human life to occur without an external stimulus. An egg, for example, will not just spontaneously grow into a human being (Virgin Mary arguments aside).

This is the reason why I establish as a baseline that a fertilized egg has rights. This has not touched on any issues such as competing rights. I have merely argued that in a "vacuum", a fertized egg has some rights that we need to be aware of. When competing rights come into play, things get more complicated. What happens, for instance, when the life of the mother is endangered by bringing the child to term? In this case, I think the mother can have an abortion if she wants to. This area gets really grey if we think of other examples, such as if bringing the child to term wouldn't kill the mother, only maim. Those questions are beyond the scope of this post.

I also wanted to touch on something that Neil brought up. Yes, it is true that many fertilized eggs are lost before implementation. I do not consider these acts of murder, as we didn't have full control over the situation; However, I still think actively encouraging a non-implementation is wrong. To me, it is akin to encouraging one's children to play on a busy highway. Suppose they end up getting hit by a car and dying. I don't think it is a good argument to say either, "I did nothing wrong. The people in the cars killed them, not me," or, "50% of children that play in the streets get hit by cars anyways". Yes, it is true that many fertilized eggs are lost before implementation, but encouraging that outcome through the use of certain contraceptives, I think, is wrong. Also, justifying it by saying that eggs are lost all the time is also a little faulty.

In case anybody is still with me, my views on most contraception issues are as follows: no abortion except in the case of serious health issues to the mother, no contraceptives that either destroy a fertilized egg or inhibit its implementation. Other than that, contraceptives that stop an egg from being fertilized, such as condoms, spermicide, etc., are ok. Possibly birth control pills, if they stop ovulation (which would stop an egg from becoming fertilized). If they function by stopping implementation, I don't think those are ok.

Lastly (so sorry...so much typing...), we come to the question of whether we should be legislating this at all. It is one thing to view something as wrong. It is another thing altogether to legislate it. I am also a vegetarian on philosophical lines. Though I think it is wrong to eat meat, I don't think I would ever support legislation that argues for this. On the other hand, I believe that murder is wrong, and I do support legislation that prohibits this. I feel that abortion/contraception legislation is somewhere between these two points. I don't know where, precisely, but I think it leans more towards the vegetarian side.

I think, Neil, that it is becoming clear to many people that a good portion of the Republican Party--which, after all, was once the party of Lincoln--has been hijacked by a radical fringe movement and that it is a waste of time to take that fringe seriously.

I hate to tell you this, but half of Americans are "fringe". US is the only western non-islamic country in which half of the population flat out rejects evolution and thinks that Earth is younger than the domestication of dogs.

Not to mention the belief in angels, demons, the end of the world, climate change denial, etc.etc.

When you think about it, the mentality of a large chunk of US population is of a third world country.

Finally, we arrive at my conclusion. I think that a fertilized egg has a right to life, because it satisfies the basic requirement of being a human being. If an adult has rights and a teenager has rights and a child has rights and a baby has rights, then the chain keeps going (I think) all the way up to fertilization. Before that, there is no possibility for a human life to occur without an external stimulus. An egg, for example, will not just spontaneously grow into a human being (Virgin Mary arguments aside).

That is a nonsensical argument, at the period in time of (about) 2 weeks after fertilisation the "Human with rights" as you would describe the small bundle of cells measures just .03mm across, it is simply put "not Human", it has the potential to become a human, somewhere between a 50% and 66% chance, the relatively small chance is due to the Human body "rejecting" this small bundle of cells for many reasons that are not the choice of the mother.

To equate the "rights to life" of this bundle of cells against the wishes of the mother (and to a lesser degree the father) is every bit as insane as the ban on contraception.

Here is a little know bit of knowledge to consider. One of or possibly the single best for of charity for the millions of 3rd world impoverished people is something called "women's rights", where women have been given the power over their own reproductive system the life quality of those people has increased a huge amount. The simple fact that a woman can chose when to get pregnant without being forced to abandon sex has meant that even with stagnant food supplies the entire family has more to eat, which keeps them healthier and more productive, and when this family chooses to have a baby, that baby is born into a much better situation and has much better life chances than it would have if it was the 4th baby (and perhaps the second to survive beyond a toddler).

This is exactly the same situation with abortion, people who have done something silly like shagging a total stranger they met at the pub and didn't use a condom should be given the choice (the mother specifically) to have an abortion or not. A planned and well financed pregnancy with a supportive partner or husband leads to a considerably better outcome for all parties involved, especially the mother and child.

I am all for women as individuals to chose to have an abortion if they wish to have one up until the time when doctors (not politicians) deem is appropriate. Currently that time here in the UK is 24-weeks, there is a reasonable argument to drop this to 20-weeks but below this time period is stupid as many very serious congenital defects cannot be detected before 20-weeks with any reliability.

Here is a link to a very concise description (with pictures) of human embryology, note the 2-week details that I mentioned (second link).

Here is a little know bit of knowledge to consider. One of or possibly the single best for of charity for the millions of 3rd world impoverished people is something called "women's rights", where women have been given the power over their own reproductive system the life quality of those people has increased a huge amount. The simple fact that a woman can chose when to get pregnant without being forced to abandon sex has meant that even with stagnant food supplies the entire family has more to eat, which keeps them healthier and more productive, and when this family chooses to have a baby, that baby is born into a much better situation and has much better life chances than it would have if it was the 4th baby (and perhaps the second to survive beyond a toddler).

I very much appreciate the sentiment of the above, but as I outlined in my first few paragraphs, I'm not a consequentialist or utilitarian, so speaking of the rightness or wrongness of an action based solely on consequences doesn't change my argument. I definitely understand and am happy for the improvement that these options have given many women around the world, but when it comes to post-fertilization methods of birth control, I just don't agree.

I know you don't consider a fertilized egg as a human being, but just stay with me for a moment. A famous line from Dostoyevsky is as follows: Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end ... but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?

Similarly, as a neokantian, I do not think that the benefits that post-fertilization contraceptives are sufficient to justify their use if (and I understand you vehemently dispute this if) it means the frustration of a potential human being's life.

I just want to say one more time that I definitely approve and support contraception and a woman's right to her reproductive health. Just not in the case of destroying a fertilized egg. I don't think it's crazy or an insane position. If it is, please show me where it's crazy (without just pointing at the conclusion). I tried to outline a rough picture of my thought process. I think the only place you could draw an argument is either rejecting a kantian view (which is doable), or by saying that it's not arbitrary to draw the beginning of a human life at a different point. But where, then, would you draw the line? Is partial birth abortion (where the 9 month old baby is literally nearly out of the birth canal when its spinal cord is broken) permissible? If so, why aren't other forms of infanticide allowed?

Lastly, you say that a small .03mm bundle of cells is simply not human. I would imagine if you ask many biologists, they would, in fact, say those cells are very much human. I'm sure there is a large controversy whether it is considered a human being, but I would think they would consider them human.

Finally, we arrive at my conclusion. I think that a fertilized egg has a right to life, because it satisfies the basic requirement of being a human being. If an adult has rights and a teenager has rights and a child has rights and a baby has rights, then the chain keeps going (I think) all the way up to fertilization. Before that, there is no possibility for a human life to occur without an external stimulus. An egg, for example, will not just spontaneously grow into a human being (Virgin Mary arguments aside).

There are two problems with this paragraph. First, we do not confer equal rights upon all humans. In particular we differentiate rights depending on age. Adults get all rights while children have fewer the younger you look at them. A child does not have choice many things, we grant a great deal of authority over their choices, even very fundamental ones, to their parents or gaurdians. For instance, if an infant were very ill, it would be the parents' choice to stop heroic measures or to remove life support.

You also say "An egg, for examples, will not just spontaneously grow into a human being." suggesting that a zygote would. However, that only is true if you count "spontaneously" as "with the assistance of a woman's uterus." So, in fact, a zygote needs life support to live. So, it seems to me the decision to prevent implantation or remove an implanted blastocyst is farther from murder than not using heroic measures or removing life support from an ailing infant.

It seems to me that your argument actually is obligating women to provide life support to any zygote that wanders by. That is like mandating that all parents pursue any and all medical options in the case of a sick child. We don't do that, and the sick child is "closer" to an adult, so should be afforded more rights than the zygote.

In fact, it seems to me, that if life were this precious, we should be providing health care to all, yet we are not. We should be ensuring that our population has a basic standard of living and doing everything we can to prevent our men and women in the military from going into harms way. Somehow, at least in the US, the party that advocates the sanctity of life doesn't care about that life once it is born, then it can starve to death, or die from a treatable disease. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Finally, we arrive at my conclusion. I think that a fertilized egg has a right to life, because it satisfies the basic requirement of being a human being. If an adult has rights and a teenager has rights and a child has rights and a baby has rights, then the chain keeps going (I think) all the way up to fertilization. Before that, there is no possibility for a human life to occur without an external stimulus. An egg, for example, will not just spontaneously grow into a human being (Virgin Mary arguments aside).

There are two problems with this paragraph. First, we do not confer equal rights upon all humans. In particular we differentiate rights depending on age. Adults get all rights while children have fewer the younger you look at them. A child does not have choice many things, we grant a great deal of authority over their choices, even very fundamental ones, to their parents or gaurdians. For instance, if an infant were very ill, it would be the parents' choice to stop heroic measures or to remove life support.

You also say "An egg, for examples, will not just spontaneously grow into a human being." suggesting that a zygote would. However, that only is true if you count "spontaneously" as "with the assistance of a woman's uterus." So, in fact, a zygote needs life support to live. So, it seems to me the decision to prevent implantation or remove an implanted blastocyst is farther from murder than not using heroic measures or removing life support from an ailing infant.

It seems to me that your argument actually is obligating women to provide life support to any zygote that wanders by. That is like mandating that all parents pursue any and all medical options in the case of a sick child. We don't do that, and the sick child is "closer" to an adult, so should be afforded more rights than the zygote.

In fact, it seems to me, that if life were this precious, we should be providing health care to all, yet we are not. We should be ensuring that our population has a basic standard of living and doing everything we can to prevent our men and women in the military from going into harms way. Somehow, at least in the US, the party that advocates the sanctity of life doesn't care about that life once it is born, then it can starve to death, or die from a treatable disease. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

One person's modus tollens is another person's modus ponens. Your deductions from what I said are spot on. It is commendable.

I do have quite a radical view on things such as charity. I don't want to get into them too much, but you could look up Kant's distinction on perfect and imperfect duties to get an idea of how I would answer. But in the theoretical situation where a fertilized egg floated around, I would think that we ought to give it care. It would be nice if I could go Zeus style and sew it into my thigh to bring it to maturity, but as I can't, it would most probably be up to a woman. I wouldn't force her to do it, however. Again, looking at Kant's imperfect duties would explain my position.

Again, I agree that we do confer different rights on individuals depending on their age. To me, this is an attempt to approximate times when individuals attain certain levels of rational thinking. It's imperfect, but it's what we do. But I don't think we can extrapolate from this that there is a time when a human life has no rights whatsoever. Yes, we allow guardians to make decisions for a sick child. But I don't think we'd allow a parent to terminate the life of a perfectly healthy child. I think we would point to a child's right to life. Your example spoke of a seriously ill child. I do not think these situations are analogous.

Your second paragraph is wonderful. I think I have a good enough answer for it, but it would be very long. But yes, it is definitely a concern.

The basic determination of whether abortion should be legal or not legal has always boiled down to a utilitarian one, and arguments on both sides are guilty of straying from this.

I never thought that the premise of it being "a woman's right to choose what she does with her body" was strong enough to overwhelm the anti-abortion crowd. It's entirely empathetic, but that's not enough to vanquish the forces of dogma.

Of course life is a gift of God, of course life begins at conception, yes there are women who make false claims of rape, there even might be a bit of truth to that fool Akin's claim that a traumatized woman won't get pregnant, but it's always been extremely obvious that the politicians who spout these maxims are cynical manipulators exploiting some of the lowest passions of their constituents. They exploit these same passions in calling for the death penalty, in lying about reasons for wars that kill hundreds of thousands, in trying to gather support by frightening their constituents away from helping the sick, and much more.

Having abortion be legal is just an adult kind of decision, which scares a lot of people. Having it be legal doesn't endorse abortion, doesn't remove the need to try and prevent it by every respectful means. The reality is that it's going to happen anyway, legal or not; with illegality there will be coat hanger deaths, unwanted births, and far more death and chaos.

I could go on. Everything I could say has been said before. It seems to me that the anti-abortion phonies could be better dealt with by a steady line of core focus rather than by emotionally charged reactions to their statements.

Again, I agree that we do confer different rights on individuals depending on their age. To me, this is an attempt to approximate times when individuals attain certain levels of rational thinking. It's imperfect, but it's what we do. But I don't think we can extrapolate from this that there is a time when a human life has no rights whatsoever. Yes, we allow guardians to make decisions for a sick child. But I don't think we'd allow a parent to terminate the life of a perfectly healthy child. I think we would point to a child's right to life. Your example spoke of a seriously ill child. I do not think these situations are analogous.

Well, if I may, I think you can extrapolate to a time when human life doesn't have any rights. As a vegetarian, you may object to this line of reasoning, but in terms of legality, animals don't have any particular rights. As a society, we have no trouble killing animals for food, so they obviously don't have the rights that people do. The question then becomes, what makes a human being different from animals? Scientifically speaking, that would be our large cerebral cortex. That's also, roughly speaking, what gives us our identity, and essentially our personhood. For instance, I would definitely argue that although a fertilized egg might be 'human', to the extent that it has a complete set of human DNA, it isn't actually a person, because it could split during it's cell division phase, and create a set of identical twins instead of a single person. The creation of the separate brains gives you two separate people. In fact, even conjoined twins can be considered separate individuals, even though they are linked. The human cerebral cortex is the big difference between us and other animals, and that starts getting wired up in about the 7th month of fetal development. So, the current standard of allowing abortion in the first two trimesters is a little conservative, but I think it's probably ok.

Now as I said, if you're a vegetarian, and you believe that animals have certain rights, then you may not agree with this line of reasoning. Although you wouldn't try to make vegetarianism the law, so I'm not sure where you would stand on the legality of abortion if you do agree in principle with my argument. I'm not sure if you're off at the Jain extreme where you wouldn't hurt an insect, although a fertilized egg is certainly smaller than an insect. But anyway, that's where I stand.

In addition to rape, the people espousing these opinions also do not have an exception for incest or statutory rape. They think that most claims of rape are fake and after they get their way to outlaw what is legal now - women will make up stories just so they can get an abortion. Hence all the parsed language like "legitimate rape" and "forcible rape" - all rape is forcible.

They only seem to allow abortion if the life of the mother is threatened. A woman has no control over what happens to her body - any slob thinking with his little head can do what ever he wants and forces himself on her and she has to accept "the gift from God".

They would outlaw all birth control (except maybe condoms?) and who knows what sorts of tangled webs will come from this new definition of personhood.

Tell that to the children of Josef Fritzl. If "life" is a gift of God, then being imprisoned and raped by your own father must also be a "Gift of God", for in this example they are both very much intertwined.

No it does not, the "potential" for life begins at conception, otherwise the vast majority of women with children must by your definition be "murderers" because as I pointed out before a large percentage of "life" does not make it to the 3-month stage of pregnancy.

Quote:

there even might be a bit of truth to that fool Akin's claim that a traumatized woman won't get pregnant

Please deliver your evidence.

Quote:

It seems to me that the anti-abortion phonies could be better dealt with by a steady line of core focus rather than by emotionally charged reactions to their statements.

Please re-write this sentence so that it makes some sense, rather than a political statement that has no substance at all.

Quote:

They only seem to allow abortion if the life of the mother is threatened. A woman has no control over what happens to her body - any slob thinking with his little head can do what ever he wants and forces himself on her and she has to accept "the gift from God".

This is what happens when God enters politics, or in some peoples views, this is what happens when God enters a woman forcefully.

Quote:

They would outlaw all birth control (except maybe condoms?) and who knows what sorts of tangled webs will come from this new definition of personhood.

I do have quite a radical view on things such as charity. I don't want to get into them too much, but you could look up Kant's distinction on perfect and imperfect duties to get an idea of how I would answer. But in the theoretical situation where a fertilized egg floated around, I would think that we ought to give it care. It would be nice if I could go Zeus style and sew it into my thigh to bring it to maturity, but as I can't, it would most probably be up to a woman. I wouldn't force her to do it, however. Again, looking at Kant's imperfect duties would explain my position.

Have you gone an volunteered to donate bone marrow? Donating bone marrow is less of an imposition than pregnancy, and you can do that as a male (unless you have some conditions yourself) Furthermore, someone with leukemia usually has a longer unassisted life expectancy than a zygote. Furthermore they usually have far more developed cognitive faculties. Perhaps organ or tissue donation should be mandatory? Looked at as a medical procedure, carrying a child to term is incredibly invasive, with months of discomfort, significant risks both short term (death very rarely) and long term (bone mass loss and diabetes.) Fetal cells persist in the woman's body for decades and have been implicated in some auto-immune disorders. In many ways, it is invasive than organ donation, which is never mandatory in the west.

Quote:

Again, I agree that we do confer different rights on individuals depending on their age. To me, this is an attempt to approximate times when individuals attain certain levels of rational thinking. It's imperfect, but it's what we do. But I don't think we can extrapolate from this that there is a time when a human life has no rights whatsoever. Yes, we allow guardians to make decisions for a sick child. But I don't think we'd allow a parent to terminate the life of a perfectly healthy child. I think we would point to a child's right to life. Your example spoke of a seriously ill child. I do not think these situations are analogous.

Why are they not analogous? Consider a newborn. They cannot eat solid food or move and do not have control over their sphincters. If an adult were in this situation we would consider them very ill. In terms of being able to live an unassisted life, newborns are not healthy, they are in fact very ill, and need to be nurtured to full health over months. A zygote is even worse. It can't service any of its own biological needs unless immediately connected to the most intensive life support system know, a living woman's uterus.

A zygote is not a person. It is a human cell. It is a human cell that may be able to, under the right circumstances, develop into a new complete human animal. The only reason to think of it as something more is because it often finds itself in those very circumstances.

I challenge you to come up with a definition of "person" that satisfies the following two requirements:1) Does not base itself on unique human dna.2) Does not include something like a adult stem cell, which could, under the right circumstances, be induced into forming a new complete human animal.

As to why I rule out the dna aspect, I do think that thinking about this matter gets hung up on the idea of a unique DNA combination be the thing that deserves human rights. Consider three facts:

1) Twins. They clearly are separate individuals despite having identical DNA.2) Immortal human cells. Some human cells are viable long-term outside of a human body. These cells do not have any rights.3) We can now successfully clone mammals. It is reasonable to think we will have the technical ability within 50 years to clone a human being. With this ability comes the fact that *any* human cell could represent the start of a new life. We can't let any human cell die then? We should clone every cell we can?

Finally, I suggest that discussing these questions in a vacuum is not appropriate, since the conclusions are not played out in a vacuum. For instance, while I completely respect your vegetarianism (I was vegetarian myself for 6 years, but not for ethical reasons.) if you think there is no animal death involved in your food, you are incorrect. If you are eating commercially produced grain for instance, you are complicit in the death of countless mice and other rodents that are killed as the fields are plowed and harvested, as well as killed to prevent them from consuming your food. I don't think you can argue that there is less suffering involved in diet of wild caught fish than in a diet of commercially produced plants.

If you are eating commercially produced grain for instance, you are complicit in the death of countless mice and other rodents that are killed as the fields are plowed and harvested, as well as killed to prevent them from consuming your food. I don't think you can argue that there is less suffering involved in diet of wild caught fish than in a diet of commercially produced plants.

Hmmm. Sometimes the bigger fish prey on smaller fish before you catch them, so you have to factor that in.

Funny. But I think you'll agree it's not as simple as this image makes it seem. I think this will be the last thing I say as I can sense some are getting annoyed.

Is this a chair?

Is this a chair?

Is this a chair?

What I'm trying to get at is what we use in arguments are words, yet words are so fluid that they are nearly analogous to variables. I understand a fertilized egg is not a human being. But just because the word that we use to describe a right-earning human being does not apply to a fertilized egg doesn't mean that it doesn't own rights. The argument is not as simple as saying that it doesn't fit the form of a human being.

@Nicias: I would think that giving bone marrow and other forms of donations are very good things. As I said earlier, I would suggest looking at Kant's distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Very briefly and coarsely, Kant thinks that perfect duties are things we must always do (and that we can demand from others). An example is the right to be free from murder (ie. wrongful killing). An example of an imperfect duty would be charity. To Kant, these are things that are good that we should do, but not something that can be demanded from you. I believe a right to not be murdered is an example of a perfect duty. Furthermore, I believe purposely terminating a pregnancy is an example of murder.

And regarding vegetarianism, yes, I am aware that many things that aren't literally eating animals cause animal suffering. I still believe we ought to do everything that we can to decrease or eliminate said suffering. It would be weird to let somebody drown in a pool (when you could have easily saved them). If somebody asked you why you didn't save them, would it be reasonable to say, "Well, people drown all the time. Why would it matter that I didn't save that one?" Yes, this is a rough example, but I think if one took the time, one could make this analogy work.

I just want to make a point one last time. Suppose that you guys are right and that rights are not conferred at the moment of conception. When do you think rights should be given? I think we all believe children deserve rights (even though they couldn't live on their own and may, by someone's definition, be considered unhealthy). I think we all believe an infant deserves rights. I think we may agree that there are unborn children that are viable (meaning they would be able to survive outside the womb). So when do rights begin? I just can't find a nonarbitrary place to draw the line except at conception.

What these politicians want is to make abortion impossible for a young girl who was raped by her father/brother/uncle/grandfather, or some guy in a bar who slipped her a mickie, or a boss or other person who has power over her forced himself upon her, or a guy who didn't understand the word "no".

The rapist's life isn't changed at all -- he just got his rocks off one more time. The female victim -- the woman has had her entire life changed! She has to bear the child, deliver the child, support the child, be mother to the child -- that child will always remind her of the rape.

"I hate to tell you this, but half of Americans are "fringe". US is the only western non-islamic country in which half of the population flat out rejects evolution and thinks that Earth is younger than the domestication of dogs."

True, many U.S. Americans are creationists and believe that our world is no older than the biblical 10,000 (or is it 7,000?) years despite all evidence to the contrary.

From Wikipedia: "According to a 2007 Gallup poll, about 43% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution]

Yet the numbers in other countries are substantial, too: in Canada, for example, "22 percent think that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years" [ibid.]. Similar figures for Australia, New Zealand, UK, India, and others.

So, creationism isn't a uniquely U.S. phenomenon (see Myth 24 in: "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion").

I understand a fertilized egg is not a human being. But just because the word that we use to describe a right-earning human being does not apply to a fertilized egg doesn't mean that it doesn't own rights.

A Foetus is a parasite by the definition of a parasite, most parasite's we kill because they dont have the "potential" (note: I keep on using that word) to become a human being, so it stands to reason that the mother should have the right to terminate a parasite that they are carrying or to keep that parasite, give birth, give it a name and love and nurture it as a Human Being because after all it is no longer a parasite by definition once it is born.

Furthermore, I believe purposely terminating a pregnancy is an example of murder.

Please explain how it is not by your own admission "murder" when the mothers body "terminates" a very large percentage of "potential" human beings.? This has been mentioned a couple of times already and you have not given an answer to this point. A second and related question, in the early period of "conception" it is possible to have a "termination" when there is no actual evidence to suggest that there is a "potential" living human being to even "terminate", would that also be considered "murder" when the "potential" human being is already dead.?

Quote:

I just can't find a nonarbitrary place to draw the line except at conception.

I dont see how you consider "conception" as a non-arbitrary line when you look at the large percentage of "potential" human beings that dont make it to the 4th month of gestation Also, would you also consider it wrong to terminate pregnancies where the child is going to be born with very serious problems.? I would argue that it is far more humane to terminate the "potential" human beings that would otherwise be born to a life of pain, suffering and misery, but ultimately I would leave that decision to the parents and to doctors in exactly the same way that I would leave the choice of abortion to the parents and doctors.

Please explain how it is not by your own admission "murder" when the mothers body "terminates" a very large percentage of "potential" human beings.?

It couldn't be murder because it lacks intent. Regardless, it's specious to argue that abortion is acceptable because so many pregnancies terminate naturally. The same line of reasoning could be used to justify executing cancer patients.

andyb wrote:

Also, would you also consider it wrong to terminate pregnancies where the child is going to be born with very serious problems.? I would argue that it is far more humane to terminate the "potential" human beings that would otherwise be born to a life of pain, suffering and misery ...

Now that is an argument I've never heard adequately refuted, and the reason why I am firmly opposed to all of the abortion-banning legislation out there right now. I'm utterly appalled by pro-lifers who passionately defend a child when it's a single cell but lose interest the moment it hits open air. There's all this debate on whether an embryo is a person, but hardly any on what will happen after it's person-hood becomes indisputable. What kind of life will the child have if they grow up knowing they're the product of rape or incest, if they're raised by a mother who resents their existence and is too young to care for herself, let alone a child? How can society protect these children from the near-inevitable neglect and abuse when we can't even protect children born by choice?

In my opinion, if you're going to ban abortion, the first step should be one of two things: figuring out how to guarantee that the unwanted children have a good life in a loving home, or taking a long swim with a millstone hung around your neck. (That's a biblical allusion, FYI.)

_________________If you've examined both sides of an argument, you haven't examined enough sides.

It couldn't be murder because it lacks intent. Regardless, it's specious to argue that abortion is acceptable because so many pregnancies terminate naturally.

That was just me taking the piss, I dont consider the destruction of a Foetus in the early(ish) stages as murder either and obviously I dont consider abortion as murder so long as its not done after a certain period of time unless there is a medical risk. My little jibe about the "natural termination" is really there for those who oppose abortion on religious grounds - if the "gift" of pregnancy is given by God, then God also destroys 30+% of all of the life he has supposedly given, that makes God a total bastard who is very wasteful - hardly the finest display of Omnipotence.

Quote:

Now that is an argument I've never heard adequately refuted, and the reason why I am firmly opposed to all of the abortion-banning legislation out there right now. I'm utterly appalled by pro-lifers who passionately defend a child when it's a single cell but lose interest the moment it hits open air. There's all this debate on whether an embryo is a person, but hardly any on what will happen after it's person-hood becomes indisputable. What kind of life will the child have if they grow up knowing they're the product of rape or incest, if they're raised by a mother who resents their existence and is too young to care for herself, let alone a child? How can society protect these children from the near-inevitable neglect and abuse when we can't even protect children born by choice?

Well said with wise words and sensible reflection.

Quote:

In my opinion, if you're going to ban abortion, the first step should be one of two things: figuring out how to guarantee that the unwanted children have a good life in a loving home, or taking a long swim with a millstone hung around your neck. (That's a biblical allusion, FYI.)

This is one of the problems that some "only" see as financial, the difference is quality and longevity of life that most of us in the west simply do not recognise. Even in the rich west, there is a huge gulf of difference between those children (and their parents) who are not prepared to have a child (i.e. unplanned) and those who have planned for a child.

M0002a reminds us that democrats can be just as bad as republicans. While that potential remains true, I'm wondering where the democratic rape chart is and why has hasn't produced it to make things as "fair and balanced" as he sees them?

So where are you m0002a? You absence speaks volumes, or is that the point?

_________________People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither﻿ patriots nor human beings.

Well some of the lunatic fringe are blaming the governor of NJ for Romney's loss. They apparently are not happy that he was so chummy with Obama after Sandy, and that he refused to be partisan, and expected him to look a gift horse in the mouth. And that doesn't even address Obama's non-Bush response to Sandy, i.e. "You're doing a helluva job Brownie."

Funny how the religious zealots can pick and choose when to apply God and when to ignore Him. Sandy was an act of God, so obviously Romney's loss was God's will.

_________________People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither﻿ patriots nor human beings.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum